UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
ANN PERSAUD,

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

CITY OF NEW YORK and UNIDENTIFIED NEW
YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES,
----------------------------------------X

-against-

Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, 09-CV-05337 –(PKC)

JURISDICTION

The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, by her
attorney, DARMIN T BACHU ESQ. of BACHU & ASSOCIATES,
respectfully shows to this Court and alleges:

1. Jurisdiction is founded upon the existence of a Federal
Question.
2. This is an action to redress the deprivation under color
of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a
right, privilege, and immunity secured to plaintiff by the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States (42 U.S.C. ' 1983) and arising under the law and
statutes of the State of New York.
3. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331,
1343(3) and 1343(4), this being an action authorized by law to
redress the deprivation under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom and usage of a right, privilege,
and immunity secured to plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 2 of 13

PARTIES

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
4. That venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1391 (b)
(1&2).
5. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest
and costs, the sum or value of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
($150,000.00) DOLLARS.
6. That an award of attorney=s fees is appropriate pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. ' 1988.

7. The plaintiff, Ann Persaud, an Asian female, is a
resident of the United States and is a resident of the County
of Queens, State of New York.
8. Upon information and belief, that at all times
hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, CITY OF NEW YORK(NYC),
was and still is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New
York.
9. Upon information and belief, that at all times
hereinafter mentioned, the defendant NYC its agents, servants
and employees operated, maintained and controlled the NEW YORK
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (NYCPD), including all the police
officers thereof and that NYC is vicariously liable for the
violations of New York State tort law by its servants, agents
and employees via the principle of respondeat superior as at

2

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 3 of 13

all times relevant all defendant officers were acting for,
upon, and in furtherance of the business of their employer and
within the scope of their employment.
10. Upon information and belief, that at all times
hereinafter mentioned, defendants UNIDENTIFIED NEW YORK CITY
POLICE OFFICERS were employed by the defendant NYC as police
officers in New York City, New York.
11. The NYCPD is a local governmental agency, duly formed and
operating under and by virtue of the Laws and Constitution of
the State of New York and the defendant NYC is responsible for
the policies, practices and customs of the NYCPD as well as
the hiring, screening, training, supervising, controlling and
disciplining of its police officers and civilian employees.
12. This action arises under the United States Constitution,
particularly under provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and under
federal law, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 of
the United States Code, Section 1983 and the rights under the
Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
13. Each and all of the acts of the defendants, alleged
herein were done by the defendants, their agents, servants and
employees, and each of them not as individuals, but under the
color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations,
customs and usages of the State of New York, the City of New

3

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 4 of 13

PENDENT STATE CLAIMS

York, and under the authority of their office as police
officers of said state and city.

14. That Notice of the Plaintiffs= claims, the nature of the
claims and the date of, the time when, the place where and the
manner in which the claims arose were duly served upon the
Comptroller of the defendant NYC within ninety days on or
about May 28, 2008..
15. No 50-H hearing was requested of the plaintiff.
16. That more than thirty days have elapsed since the Notice
of Claim have been served upon the defendants and the said
defendants have neglected or refused to make any adjustment or
payment thereof.
17. That this action is commenced within one year and ninety
days after the causes of action arose.
18. That New York CPLR ' 1601 does not apply pursuant to the
exception provided by CPLR ' 1602(1)(b).

19. On April 5, 2008 at about 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM at her
residence located at 111-38 112th Street, Ozone Park, Queens.
Plaintiff Ann Persaud was in her house when the defendants,
without any reason or explanation, pushed their way into the
plaintiff’s home. The defendants pushed the plaintiff to the
ground. As a result, the plaintiff was forced to the ground,

20. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and
effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein.

21. That the plaintiff’s rights have been violated under the
Fourth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s residence was unlawfully
entered and searched and plaintiff was unlawfully seized, imprisoned
and assaulted. Plaintiff was subjected to an illegal search of her
property, had her rights to privacy violated and was subjected to
abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
22. As a direct result of defendants' actions, plaintiff was
deprived of rights, privileges and immunities under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution being more
particularly plaintiff's rights: to be secure in their persons,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; not to
be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law;
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him/her as secured to him/her under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States; and the right to the equal
protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

5

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 6 of 13

Constitution of the United States; right to be free from excessive
force.

23. That the said assault, detention, arrest and imprisonment
were caused by the defendants, their agents, servants and employees,
without any warrant or other legal process and without authority of
the law and without any reasonable cause or belief that the plaintiff
was in fact guilty of crimes.

24. That the defendants, their agents, servants and employees
acting within the scope of their authority and within the scope of
their employment, detained plaintiff even though the defendants, their
agents, servants and employees, had the opportunity to know or should
have known, that the matters hereinbefore were alleged wrongfully,
unlawfully and without sufficient charges having been made against the
plaintiff, directed that the plaintiff be searched and detained.

25. That the defendant individual police officers conspired
together to violate plaintiff’s rights in that the individual officers
acted in concert to unlawfully violate plaintiff’s rights.

26. That the plaintiff was innocent of criminal charges and did
not contribute in any way to the conduct of the defendants, their
agents, servants and employees and were forced by the defendants to
submit to the aforesaid actions thereto entirely against her will.

27. That the defendants intended to seize, detain and/or confine
the plaintiff; in that the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement;
plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and, that the

6

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 7 of 13

confinement was not otherwise privileged.

28. That by reason of the violations of plaintiff's rights,
plaintiff was subjected to physical and emotional harms, injured in
her credit and circumstances and was then and there prevented and
hindered from performing and transacting her necessary affairs and
business, the loss of employment opportunities.

29. That by reason of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been
damaged in the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS and is
entitled to an award of punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

30. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and
effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein.

31. That on or about the above dates and times, the defendants
assaulted, seized, imprisoned, detained plaintiff; abused process
against the plaintiff; intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon
the plaintiff; invaded plaintiff's privacy; conspired against the
plaintiff; denied plaintiff her liberty under the laws and
Constitution of the State of New York; trespassed against plaintiff;
and otherwise violated plaintiff's rights under New York law.

32. That by reason of the aforesaid committed by the defendants,
their agents, servants and employees, acting within the scope of their
employment and authority, and without probable or reasonable cause,
the plaintiff’s rights were violated under New York State common,

7

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 8 of 13

statutory and constitutional law and plaintiff suffered injury, and
that she was otherwise damaged. The defendant NYC is vicariously
liable for the conduct of its employees.

33. That by reason of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been
damaged in the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS and is
entitled to an award of punitive damages.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

34. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and
effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein.

35. That the defendant NYC was negligent, careless and reckless

in hiring and retaining, properly training and supervising, as and for

its employees, the above named individual defendants and unidentified

individuals, in that the said defendants lacked the experience,

deportment and ability to be employed by the defendants, in that the

defendants failed to exercise due care and caution in their hiring

practices, and in particular, in hiring the defendant employees who

lacked the mental capacity and the ability to function as employees of

the aforementioned defendants; failing to investigate the above named

defendants' background and in that they hired and retained as

employees of the department individuals who were unqualified in that

the defendants lacked the maturity, sensibility and intelligence to be

employed when hired to be employees; also in that the defendant NYC

failed to train its employees in the proper use of weapons and

firearms; in the proper method of restraining a suspect; in the proper

8

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 9 of 13

use of force; to control their tempers and exercise the proper

deportment and temperament; and to otherwise act as reasonably prudent

police officers; failed to give them proper instruction as to their

deportment, behavior and conduct as representatives of their

employers.

36. That the aforesaid occurrences and resulting injuries were

caused wholly and solely by reason of the negligence of the

defendants, their agents, servants and employees without any

negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

37. That by reason of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been

damaged in the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON

38. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and
effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein.

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

39. That the defendants, their agents, servants and employees
negligently, carelessly and recklessly performed their duties in that
they failed to use such care in the performance of their duties as a
reasonably prudent and careful police officer would have used under
similar circumstances in that they carelessly, recklessly and
negligently assaulted and seized the plaintiff without making a proper
investigation, in that they were negligent, careless and reckless in
the manner in which they operated, controlled and maintained the
seizure of the plaintiff, that the defendants their agents, servants

9

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 10 of 13

and employees negligently, carelessly and recklessly without
provocation and with force against the plaintiff interfered with
plaintiff’s rights of free movement; negligently, carelessly and
recklessly used physical force; and in that the defendants, their
agents, servants and employees were otherwise careless, reckless and
negligent.

40. That the aforesaid occurrences and the resulting injuries to
mind and body were caused wholly and solely by reason of the
negligence of the defendants, its agents, servants and employees
without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

41. That by reason of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been

damaged in the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

42. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and
effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein.

43. Defendants NYC and UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS, who were
supervisors as a matter of policy and practice, have acted with a
callous, reckless and deliberate indifference to plaintiff's
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, failed to adequately
discipline, train or otherwise direct police officers concerning the
rights of citizens, thereby causing the defendant officers in this
case to engage in the above mentioned conduct.

10

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 11 of 13

44. Defendants NYC and UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS, who were
supervisors, as a matter of policy and practice, have with deliberate
indifference failed to properly sanction or discipline police
officers, including the defendants in this case, for violations of the
constitutional rights of citizens, thereby causing defendants in this
case, to engage in unlawful conduct.

45. Defendants as a matter of policy and practice, have with
deliberate indifference failed to sanction or discipline police
officers, including the defendants in this case, who are aware of and
subsequently conceal violations of the constitutional rights of
citizens by other police officers, thereby causing and encouraging
police, including defendants in this case, to engage in unlawful
conduct.

46. That the defendants have also with deliberate indifference
failed to intercede to stop the violation of the plaintiff's rights.
47. That the defendant police officers, each of them, separately
and in concert, acted under color and pretense of law, to wit: under
color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of
the NYC and the defendants here, separately and in concert, engaged in
the illegal conduct above mentioned to the injury of the plaintiff and
deprived plaintiff of her rights under the Constitution of the United
States and the laws of the United States.

48. The Police Officers of the defendant NYC and its individual
members who are agents, servants and employees of defendants, together

11

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 12 of 13

with persons unknown to plaintiff, acting under color of law, have
subjected plaintiff and other persons to a pattern of conduct
consisting of illegal harassments, assaults and batteries, false
imprisonments and arrests, racial and ethnic discrimination, and
malicious prosecutions at the time said persons were lawfully and
properly partaking in lawful activities in exercising their rights to
assemble, travel, demonstrate and petition the government in the City
and State of New York, in denial of rights, privileges and immunities
guaranteed plaintiff and other citizens by the Constitution of the
United States.

49. This systematic pattern of conduct consists of a large
number of individual acts of violence, intimidation, false arrest and
false imprisonment and malicious prosecution visited on plaintiff, and
other citizens by members of defendant NYC’s police department and,
acting in concert with persons unknown to plaintiff and under color of
law and said acts, while carried out under color of law, have no
justification or excuse in law and are instead illegal, improper and
unrelated to any activity in which police officers may appropriately
and legally engage in the course of protecting persons or property or
ensuring civil order.

50. Although defendants knew or should have known of the fact
that this pattern of conduct was carried out by their agents, servants
and employees, the defendants NYC and UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS,
have not taken any steps nor made any efforts to halt this course of

12

Case 1:09-cv-05337-PKC Document 1 Filed 06/09/09 Page 13 of 13

conduct, to make redress to the plaintiff or other citizens injured
thereby, or to take appropriate disciplinary action against their
employees or agents.

51. That by reason of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been

damaged in the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in
the sums stated above; and reasonable attorneys' fees; together with
costs and disbursements of this action; a trial by jury of all issues
involved in this complaint; and such other and further relief as this
Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: June 10, 2009